Joel, Thanks! Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison To: arrl-odv Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 11:17 PM Subject: My Perspective Greetings, I want to give you my perspective on the recent issue that has emerged regarding our regulation by bandwidth subset proposal. This email is for Officers, Directors and Vice Directors. I do not expect it to be forwarded outside this group. I'm sure you are receiving several emails pertaining, once again, to our attempt at regulation by bandwidth. I've been flooded with over 200 emails complaining about our most recent submission to the FCC which has been generated by the person who originated the "great robot scare" during the last round. This time, through a flaming thread on QRZ.com he has convinced the world that, because of our recent filing, CW is now doomed at the hands of ARRL. That, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. The bright tune is that once I further explain what we are proposing about 95% have responded with a "thank you" for setting the record straight with factual information. The remaining five percent don't want to understand the facts and after checking have not been ARRL members for many years. In fact, about half of the emails I have received have been from non-members. I find that interesting. Some of the emails have gotten very personal and have made some pretty disturbing accusations and threats toward me. I'm a big boy and can handle them; it is just disheartening to know that fellow radio amateurs are resorting to such measures. I have copied the respective Director on each of my replies. On Friday Dave sent each of you a number of talking points that laid out the factual, chronological detail of our effort. What we have now proposed is nothing new, but rather a subset of the original proposal. I trust that was beneficial in corresponding with your members. Concern expressed in some of the email originates from no information about our latest proposal being posted on ARRLWeb before today. You will recall at our meeting in January we discussed the matter in response to a private inquiry from the FCC, an opportunity that presented itself that we couldn't afford to ignore. At that time, because of the nature of the request, it was imperative that we keep it confidential until sometime after our formal meeting in Washington. That meeting occurred on February 13. Immediately after that meeting, Chris filed the required ex-parte paperwork with the FCC along with our proposal and the meeting became a matter of public record. On March 3 the EC met and discussed the meeting and filing further. At that same time the EC discussed whether or not we should publish an updated story about our regulation by bandwidth subset proposal. The consensus of the EC was that there was no rush to do so, the meeting and proposal was a matter of public record, what we were proposing was a subset of our original proposal so there was no need for a big story on the issue. Dave was of the opinion that we should publish something because sooner or later it would hopefully become part of an NPRM, but he accepted the wishes of the EC. And there really wasn't an issue with the subset we proposed until it came to light that an error existed in what had been submitted to the FCC regarding automatic operation that was contrary to what the Board actually instructed. It is regretful that it didn't get caught, but Part 97 is complicated. That is a bigger part of the real need to further clarify the rules which would occur under our regulation by bandwidth petition. There is one thing you must understand that I trust you do, and this is very important, at no time, NO time did any Officer, Director or staff person seek to hide information on what we were doing, mislead or misrepresent our intent whatsoever! If anyone suggests such they are just flat wrong. If that had been the case we would not be dealing with the issue now as it was pick up from the FCC public record we knew existed. Part of the problem we have is this is a complicated issue and most people don't understand it, and don't understand that there is currently no restriction on digital signal bandwidth in the CW bands currently. So, if you are concerned with us not putting something out via our channel sooner then I am the guy responsible. That was my call. I still believe it was the right thing to do after our board meeting prior to our meeting with the FCC. After our meeting with the FCC, it was a judgment call. Of course, at the time we were unaware the error regarding automatic operation existed in the filing and that possibly would have put a different viewpoint into perspective. In any event, if you are concerned about not going public with it sooner then please direct that to me, not Dave or anyone else. I made the call. I still strongly believe we are doing the right thing based on our years of research, surveys and member input on this matter beginning almost five years ago, and the current situation is being agitated by people who dislike anything ARRL does and are playing on the fears of members who are CW enthusiasts that are still either sore or bitter from the recent FCC decision to eliminate Morse as a licensing requirement. I'm confident we'll get through this and amateur radio will be better because of it. As always, I will be more than pleased to discuss this matter with any of you individually. 73 Joel W5ZN ARRL President